Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
Rand Simberg advocates a shotgun approach, of sorts, for a “space policy” — if we make it possible for a whole lot of cheap spaceflight to take place, everyone’s pet “space vision” can potentially be realized.
While I agree with maximizing participation from the commercial sector, I think there is a role for NASA. That role is essentially to “open up the frontier”, much as governments have done in the past. Governments should be involved in ventures where there is inadequate immediate return on investment to attract the private sector, but where there may be a will to go once the road is paved.
With proper planning and a clear goal, missions could be designed — whether to the Moon, Mars, or asteroids — to be sustainable. Then, once the objective is achieved, the hardware can be sold to the private sector. The key is that once a beach head is established, government needs to get out of the way. This should be done incrementally, starting with LEO.
There are certainly a lot of assumptions that go into speculating when the Mars Society might be able to raise funds to go to Mars following the opening of LEO traffic to true competition, and I’m not sure if Mr. Simberg would care to hazard a guess as to how long that might take, but I would guess 20+ years if at all. I think that is too long when our government could do it in 10, without breaking the bank, if we found the vision and determination. Until I am convinced that that can’t or won’t happen, I won’t quit fighting for it.
In the mean time, I think that I can agree with Mr. Simberg and others that it is in everyone’s best interest to open up “near space” to competition. In the short term, our approaches need not be at odds.
Why not start with ISS? What aspects of that program could be farmed out or sold off, and how soon could that happen? What’s the worst case scenario — a plunge into the South Pacific? Would that be such a bad thing?
The money’s already wasted. It’s not like splashing ISS would bring that money back, any more than it will ever be recouped by NASA’s space-based science-fair projects. But if the choice is splashing versus leasing it out, for example, as a space tourist hotel, I know which alternative I would prefer.
You’d be surprised how much attention the space hotel idea is suddenly getting.
The worst that could happen, I suppose, is for an Orbiter to collide with ISS while docking, when there is a crew of three aboard plus a taxi crew with a space tourist, causing the station and Orbiter into an uncontrolled reentry, which brings them in over a highly-populated locality in a hostile foreign country, causing a great deal of property damage and several deaths.
The ISS splashdown comment was, of course, toungue in cheek. But I was serious about consideration given to selling or leasing aspects of the program. I’m curious how the multi-national nature of the program may or may not hinder that. I bet the Russians would find a reason to support it.
While I agree with maximizing participation from the commercial sector, I think there is a role for NASA. That role is essentially to “open up the frontier”, much as governments have done in the past. Governments should be involved in ventures where there is inadequate immediate return on investment to attract the private sector, but where there may be a will to go once the road is paved.
With proper planning and a clear goal, missions could be designed — whether to the Moon, Mars, or asteroids — to be sustainable. Then, once the objective is achieved, the hardware can be sold to the private sector. The key is that once a beach head is established, government needs to get out of the way. This should be done incrementally, starting with LEO.
There are certainly a lot of assumptions that go into speculating when the Mars Society might be able to raise funds to go to Mars following the opening of LEO traffic to true competition, and I’m not sure if Mr. Simberg would care to hazard a guess as to how long that might take, but I would guess 20+ years if at all. I think that is too long when our government could do it in 10, without breaking the bank, if we found the vision and determination. Until I am convinced that that can’t or won’t happen, I won’t quit fighting for it.
In the mean time, I think that I can agree with Mr. Simberg and others that it is in everyone’s best interest to open up “near space” to competition. In the short term, our approaches need not be at odds.
Why not start with ISS? What aspects of that program could be farmed out or sold off, and how soon could that happen? What’s the worst case scenario — a plunge into the South Pacific? Would that be such a bad thing?
The money’s already wasted. It’s not like splashing ISS would bring that money back, any more than it will ever be recouped by NASA’s space-based science-fair projects. But if the choice is splashing versus leasing it out, for example, as a space tourist hotel, I know which alternative I would prefer.
You’d be surprised how much attention the space hotel idea is suddenly getting.
The worst that could happen, I suppose, is for an Orbiter to collide with ISS while docking, when there is a crew of three aboard plus a taxi crew with a space tourist, causing the station and Orbiter into an uncontrolled reentry, which brings them in over a highly-populated locality in a hostile foreign country, causing a great deal of property damage and several deaths.
But that’s probably not what you were getting at.
Depends. What country are we talking about?
The ISS splashdown comment was, of course, toungue in cheek. But I was serious about consideration given to selling or leasing aspects of the program. I’m curious how the multi-national nature of the program may or may not hinder that. I bet the Russians would find a reason to support it.